Chullin 59a — the Talmud in English

The principle

the root

of bitter herbs.

Rav Yehuda said: One who eats three stalks of chaltit,

one who eats three stalks of chaltit

on an empty stomach,

before eating

his skin is stripped off,

his skin peels off. Because chaltit is heating, and a fever seizes him.

Rabbi Abbahu said: I myself had an incident, and I ate one stalk of chaltit,

one stalk of chaltit, and the skin of my body became hot,

and had I not sat in water,

had I not sat in water in order to cool myself,

my skin would have been stripped off,

the skin of my body would have been stripped from me.

And I fulfilled upon myself [

Ecclesiastes 7 ]

“Wisdom preserves its possessor.”

Rav Yosef said: One who eats

all the following things together:

sixteen eggs, forty walnuts, seven clusters of caper blossoms’ seeds, and two quarters of honey during the season of Tammuz, on an empty stomach—

the attachment

its connection

of his heart

of his heart to the body

is uprooted.

That son of a deer,

a young deer,

who came to the house of the exilarch, whose hind legs were severed.

Rav examined him at the junction of the sinews and deemed him fit.

He intended to eat some of it rare,

not very well roasted.

Shmuel said to him:

Does the Master not fear punctures

from snake venom? For perhaps a snake bit it, and venom is found in it, and it is forbidden to eat it because of danger to life.

He said to him: What is the remedy?

He said to him: Place it in the oven, for it will examine itself,

that is, it will be examined on its own, for if there is venom in it, the matter will become evident as a result of the heat of the oven.

He placed it

in the oven, and

fell

from it

piece by piece.

Pieces, because of the snake venom that was in it.

Shmuel recited this verse about Rav [

Proverbs 12 ]

“No harm shall befall the righteous,”

for I happened to come here and prevented him from eating, and thus Rav was saved from eating the venom.

Rav recited this verse about Shmuel [

Daniel 4 ] “

No secret is withheld from you,”

for he knew to be concerned about snake venom.

Mishna:

The signs

of purity of

a domesticated animal and a wild animal were stated by the Torah,

as it is written [Leviticus 11:3]: “This is the animal that you may eat: whatever has a split hoof and has completely cloven hooves, and brings up its cud among the domesticated animals, that you may eat.”

And the signs

of purity of

a bird were not stated

in the Torah,

but

from examining the impure birds mentioned in the Torah,

the Sages said

and established signs by which to recognize which bird is impure and which bird is pure.

Every bird that tears prey,

that grasps with its claws and raises from the ground what it eats, is a bird

impure,

for a pure bird does not tear prey.

Every

bird

that has an extra toe

behind the other toes, and that toe is among the other toes,

and

has

a crop,

a pouch in which food gathers before passing to the stomach,

and its gizzard

and the sac within the gizzard

can be peeled

from the flesh by hand, without the need for a knife, is a bird

pure

it is.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok says: Every bird that spreads its legs

when it is placed upon a cord, it spreads its toes, two in this direction and two in that direction, is a bird

impure

it is, for it is known that it is a bird that tears prey.

And concerning locusts—

these are their signs of purity:

Any one that has four legs, four wings, and jumping legs,

two long legs [besides the four legs] that are located near its neck, and when it wishes to jump and leap from the ground it strengthens itself and leans upon them,

and its wings cover

cover

most of it,

most of its body.

Rabbi Yosei says: And its name is locust.

For even though it has these four signs, it is not pure unless it is also known that its name is locust.

And concerning fish—

their signs of purity were stated in the Torah:

Any one that has fins and scales.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

A fish is not pure unless it has

two scales and one fin.

And these are scales: those fixed upon it—

the scales fixed upon it, which do not move on their own when it swims, unlike the fins.

And

these are

fins: that with which it flies,

by means of which it swims in the water.

Gemara:

The Sages taught [

in the Tosefta ]:

These are the signs of

purity of

a domesticated animal:

as it is written in the portion of Re’eh [Deuteronomy 14], “

And every domesticated animal with a split hoof

and completely cloven, two hooves, and bringing up its cud among the domesticated animals, that you may eat.”

Every domesticated animal that brings up its cud—

it is known

the matter, it is known

that it has no upper teeth, and it is pure

it is.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Is it a general rule

that every domesticated animal that brings up its cud has no upper teeth and is pure?

But there is the camel, which brings up its cud,

as it is written, “the camel, because it brings up its cud,”

and it has no upper teeth, yet it is impure

it is!? And we answer:

A camel—

it has fangs!

It has two teeth above, on the two sides of the mouth. [And some explain that although it has no upper teeth, it has gums that protrude in the manner of teeth], and therefore it is impure!

And we challenge this:

But there is a camel’s offspring,

when it is small,

which likewise has no fangs,

for it has no upper fangs until it grows, and nevertheless it is impure.

And furthermore: There are the hyrax and the hare,

which bring up their cud, and they have upper teeth, and they are impure. As it is written: “And the hyrax, because it brings up its cud, but it does not split the hoof, it is impure for you. And the hare, because it brings up its cud, but it does not split the hoof, it is impure for you.”

And furthermore: Are teeth written in the Torah

with regard to the signs of purity? And what concern do we have with the animal’s teeth regarding its purity? For teeth are not one of the signs of purity of a domesticated animal written in the Torah!?

And we answer:

Rather, this is what he is saying

the tanna in the Tosefta:

Every domesticated animal that has no upper teeth is certainly one that brings up its cud and has a split hoof, and is pure.

The practical consequence is that if we see a domesticated animal that has no upper teeth, we will know that it is a pure domesticated animal, and we need not wait to see whether it brings up its cud.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: What practical consequence is there for us in this sign, that if it has no upper teeth it is pure? And why does one examine its teeth,

rather, let him examine its hooves?

For if it has a split hoof, it is a pure domesticated animal!? [For it is established that every domesticated animal with a split hoof brings up its cud, except for the pig.]

And we answer: This matter, that it is necessary to examine its teeth,

is in a case where its hooves were cut off.

For then he cannot examine the hooves, and he must rely upon this sign—that it has no upper teeth—in order to know that it is a pure domesticated animal.

And this is in accordance with Rav Ḥisda. For Rav Ḥisda said: If one was traveling in the wilderness and found an animal whose hooves were cut off,

and he does not know whether it is a pure domesticated animal

—

he examines its mouth. If it has no upper teeth—

[if it has upper teeth],

it is certainly pure. And if not—

that is,

a camel,

and he knows that that animal is not a camel. For a camel also has no upper teeth, and nevertheless it is impure.

And the Gemara is astonished:

A camel?!

But

it has fangs.

And since it has fangs [teeth] above in its mouth, why must he recognize the camel? For it has no sign of purity, and there is no concern that perhaps he will think that the camel is a pure domesticated animal!?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what Rav Ḥisda is saying:

provided that he recognizes a camel’s offspring.

For a camel’s offspring has no fangs, and therefore he must recognize it, so that he will not permit it for eating on the basis of its having no upper teeth.

And we refute this: Is it not the case that

you said,

did you not say, that

there is a camel’s offspring

that has no teeth and is impure, and if so, here too there is concern that

there is also another species,

another animal,

that resembles a camel’s offspring

that has no teeth and is impure!? And if so, what benefit is there in examining the animal to see that it has no upper teeth? Is there not concern that perhaps it is an impure animal!?

And we answer:

That cannot enter your mind!

There is no concern that there are other animals that have no upper teeth and are impure.

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is written, “

And the camel, because it brings up its cud

but does not split the hoof, it is impure for you.” The Holy One, blessed is He, who is

master of His world,

He

knows that there is no creature

animal

, that brings up its cud and is impure, except for the camel,

and its companions mentioned in the Torah—the hyrax and the hare.

Therefore, Scripture specified it

and said, “because it brings up its cud

it.”

And likewise it explicitly mentioned the hyrax and the hare, to teach you that all other domesticated animals that bring up their cud are pure, and you need not be concerned that perhaps even though they bring up their cud they are impure.

And Rav Ḥisda said:

One who

was traveling on the road and found an animal whose mouth was mutilated

cut off [and he cannot know whether it has no upper teeth, which is its sign of purity]—

examines its hooves.

If its hooves are split [

as it is written, “with a split hoof,” that is, its hooves are split ],

it is certainly

a domesticated animal

pure.

And

if not,

if its hooves are not split,

it is certainly

a domesticated animal

impure, provided that he recognizes a pig.

For the pig, although it has a split hoof, is impure.

And we refute this:

Did you not say,

did you not say, that

there is a pig

that has a split hoof and is impure? If so, here too there is concern that perhaps

there is also another species

another animal

that resembles a pig,

that has a split hoof and is impure?

And if so, what benefit is there in examining its hooves? For even if he finds that its hooves are split, perhaps it is an impure animal!?

And we answer:

That cannot enter your mind!

There is no concern that there are additional animals that have a split hoof and are impure.

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is written, “

And the pig, because it has a split hoof

and so on, it is impure for you.” The Holy One, blessed is He, who is

master of His world,

He

knows that there is no creature

animal

that has a split hoof and is impure, except for the pig

alone.

Therefore, Scripture specified it

“impure”

it,”

and mentioned only the pig, to say that the other animals with split hooves are pure. For we need not be concerned that perhaps even though they have split hooves, they are impure.

And Rav Ḥisda said: If one was traveling in the wilderness and found an animal whose mouth was mutilated,

cut off,

and whose hooves were cut off,

and he cannot examine either its teeth or its hooves to determine whether it is pure.

He examines its flesh: If it tears lengthwise and crosswise,

if, when the flesh is torn, it tears both lengthwise and widthwise,

it is certainly

a domesticated animal

pure. And if

not [if it does not tear lengthwise and crosswise],

it is certainly

a domesticated animal

impure.

Provided that he recognizes the wild ass,

the wild donkey, which, although its flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise, is an impure domesticated animal.

And we refute this:

Did you not say,

did you not say

there is a wild ass

whose flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise, and it is impure,

there is also another species,

another animal,

that resembles a wild ass,

whose flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise and it is impure. And if so, what benefit is there in examining its flesh? For even if he finds a living creature whose flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise, there is concern that perhaps it is an impure living creature!?

And we answer:

It is received by tradition

they had a received tradition,

that there is not

such an animal whose flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise and which is impure, except for the wild ass; therefore, if one found in the wilderness an animal whose flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise, and he knows that it is not a wild ass—it is certainly a pure domesticated animal.

And we explain:

And where does he examine

its flesh, whether it tears lengthwise and widthwise?

Abaye said, and some say Rav Ḥisda: At the wings of the tail,

beneath the bone of the tail; there he examines the flesh to see whether it tears lengthwise and widthwise.

We learned in the Mishna:

The signs of a wild animal.

The Sages taught: [

in the Tosefta ]

These are the signs of a wild animal:

any one that has horns and hooves.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: But

a wild animal is included within a domesticated animal with regard to the signs,

for it is written: “This is the animal that you may eat from all the domesticated animals that are upon the earth: whatever has a split hoof”; and if so, the signs of a pure wild animal are explicitly written in the Torah, so why does the Tosefta seek other signs for a wild animal!?